Talk:Tanah Burung/Archive

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit remark:
>Syskeyia
>It is a KNOWN FACT that the Catholic Church has TRADITIONALLY codemned homosexual relationships.
>My edits are neutral, stop trying to say homosexuality is OK by the Church.

For future reference, before you re-revert your edit again, start a discussion on the talk page instead. You do not resolve an issue by having an edit war on the nation page of someone else. I am not constantly editing in how atheists all hate Syskeyia and how they must be opressed, there ought to be a certain measure of respect on NSWiki.

The thing is, TB is in communion with HVS (the Catholic NS pope you conveniently ignore) and the HVS from NS is rather more liberal regarding homosexual relationships then the real-life pope (which does not even exist in NS!). Hence, Tanah Burung is in communion with the HVS Catholic Church. I think the reference in the article specifically to you being critical was quite enough of a concession to make.

Since you IGNORE HVS (for some rather trivial reasons beyond my understanding) it is really none of your business how these two players define their mutual relationship. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 23:40, 21 Oct 2004 (GMT)


I edited the remarks again. HVS is in there. :P Also, I said it was traditionally condemned by the Church, and that the issue has nonetheless generated much controversy within the Catholic communion. Or are you trying to single the Church in my country out?

Anyway, there is the remark, so there. :P --Syskeyia


In the interests of compromise, i'd be prepared to accept the "traditional Catholic teaching" line instead of the link singling out Syskeyia. But i want to be really clear: i am NOT claiming to be in communion with the real-life Holy See, which is what you edited in, Sys. This is a role-play in progress with the NS player Holy Vatican See, which i am fully prepared to see end in ex-communication. But at the moment the entry is factual. TB 00:02, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Note to self: see Talk page before reverting edits *smacks self and reverts own edit* --Goobergunch|? 00:05, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Hmm, that looks odd. In the intersts of clarity, that was 2 paragraphs from Sys and one from me. Sys, pls. sign your remarks with 4 tildes (~) so we know who said what, or people will think i'm you! TB 00:05, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


One, it's only one diocese that's doing this, and two, why the heck must I be singled out? ~Syskeyia


In the current edit, you're not singled out. I think we have an agreement on the text as it stands now. TB


"as this practice has traditionally been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church" Now wait a minute here. TB may be all nice and compromising but that is not the case in my RPing universe. HVS (whom I do recognise) does not condemn it, nor do TB, Galdago and my OWN (admittedly small) Catholic population.

Instead of the current line I would like it to be: "some elements within the Roman Catholic Church have condemned this practice" which would reflect the difference of opinion that exists much better.-- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 00:23, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Totally off topic, but i feel like saying this anyway. I attend an inner-city Roman Catholic parish which holds a monthly mass for lesbian and gay Catholics, and where the priests always preach accepting attitudes on homosexuality. The teaching may be traditional, but it is not uncontested, even within the RL church. Fortunately, Vatican II gave us the right to conscience. TB 00:41, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Been thinking the same thing. Just refrained from saying it to avoid a RL discussion. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 00:47, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Oooh, Tanah Burung is a cafeteria Catholic. *plots* Anyway, the Church's condemnation of homosexual activity was never contested until the "gay rights" movement of the late 20th century. True, there have been homosexuals before that, but nobody in the Church AFAIK said that homosexual activity was morally OK until the gay rights movement.

So, restoring "traditional teaching" (yet again) to the thingy. Whether that teaching is correct or not, I'm not going to say (in the factbook, in respect to the "NPOV") ~Syskeyia


Sys, this is starting to get annoying. You removed MORE then that (such as the "some" bit) and AGAIN it implies as if "the" (your RL, of course) catholic church condemns it. I EXPLAINED to you why this is not the case. It IS contested in NS. Your little RL story does not work. Unless you want to imply that this was the case IN THE PAST, which requires the word "historically", not "traditionally". Would you like "historically" instead?

Frankly, I think the wording I suggested was just fine as it accurately described the current situation because what the church would (theoretically) have thought of it in the past is not so relevant.

Please do not change something back before you get a reply when someone else EXLICITLY said that this wording was unacceptable. I'll be taking this behaviour up with the other sysops. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 15:22, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)

EDIT: in summary, I demand that you change it back immediately and start talking instead of editing it back to your own orthodox interpretation again and again. Frankly, your "stop trying to isolate orthodox Catholicism" comment is nonsensical. The fact that there are non-orthodox nations in NS alone is proof that it is not the "traditional" view. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 15:28, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Agree with Knoot on negotiation, not edit wars. That's basic wiki etiquette. (Syskeyia presumably wants the word traditional in there because conservative Catholic teachings on sexual morality rest on the pillars of Scripture and Tradition.)

As to the "cafeteria Catholic" smear. Syskeyia, i have not insulted you or your faith in any way. I'd like the same respect in return. You can crap all over the TB church in-character, but i won't accept personal insults directed at me. I refer you to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops statement To Live in Christ Jesus: "Some persons find themselves through no fault of their own to have a homosexual orientation. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.… The Christian community should provide them a special degree of pastoral understanding and care." I further refer you to the right to conscience, a fully orthodox church teaching enshrined in law at the second Vatican council. To cite the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered nor consider themselves cut off from the body of the faithful." TB 16:49, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Oh and by the way, it's inaccurate to say that no one in the church said homosexual activity was OK until the gay right movement came along. John Boswell has written several books that point to examples of Catholic acceptance before modern period. TB


Speaking as a sysop, and only a sysop: I have no knowledge or interest in this topic in either RL or roleplay, but I can see an edit war brewing. Given that no roleplay can be necessarily be viewed in an identical fashion due to the absence of emotional nuances in text play, there are no "facts" upon which to base this, nor an honest and unbiased NPOV. As long as the conversation states something like this ...

  • "Syskeyia Catholic doctrine clearly states ..."

... there will be no NPOV dispute, as long as the edits do not replace contrasting views.. This is NationStates, not real-life, and that is the perspective being shown here. If it differs from traditional or historic interpretations, so be it.

There is NO single correct viewpoint in religion, so don't edit on the assumption that only yours is correct. Frisbeeteria Θtalk 17:10, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Agreed, Frisbeetaria. This is why I advocated a "some" or other formulation of words rather then a rather vague formulation of words implying an "entire Church" viewpoint that does not exist in NS. Also, I see a clear difference in the word "traditional" (in its meaning of "conservative" or "Orthodox" interpretation) and "traditionally" which clearly means something else and implies that it is the general approach to the issue. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 17:16, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Rather than continuing this discussion in this fairly out-of-the-way place, let's move or summarize relevant bits over to Category talk:Religions. Tanah Burung, please don't wipe this for, say, a week, to give others a chance to gather responses. Frisbeeteria Θtalk 18:39, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)

I misread the title of this page and thought we were using User talk:Tanah Burung. As this is a current arbitration issue, this page should not be wiped in any case, and the discussion is appropriate here. Other discussions of religion on NSwiki are welcome at Category talk:Religions, of course. Frisbeeteria Θtalk 00:39, 23 Oct 2004 (GMT)

OK, that sounds good to me. TB 21:19, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Changing the subject, TB's freewebs map isn't coming up- it's just linking to the wiki page. I've had that same problem with freewebs, too. You might try setting up a photobucket account, or uploading the map to the server. ~Syskeyia

I'll look into the map. I've edited a suggested compromise into the religion box: let's discuss here rather than edit back and forth. TB 16:00, 24 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Acceptable to me provided the wording is NOT changed for the worse again. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 16:03, 24 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Map now on a new server, not the evil freewebs.

As this seems to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and deals only with one sentence in a longish article, i wonder if all this might be moved to an archive page as was done with the Order of the Invisible hand talk page? TB 23:28, 21 Nov 2004 (GMT)